Distant Worlds 2

dislike that renaming planets and stars doesn't work right half the time it shows the original name, half the time it shows your name.

[Edit: Though this review remains largely unchanged after another 10 hours, I'm willing to say this is palpable enough of an experience to flip it to a tentative thumbs up. Also, the developers seem like a good sport who are open to feedback, and that's always a good sign.] Making a game is really hard, so it with the utmost respect that I look at this magnificent artifact and report that, fourteeen hours in, first impressions are that it's an extremely bad time. The technology tree advances very slowly. In Distant Worlds 2, every time a new ship tech unlocks, it feels like the patience to wait for them is rewarded with a need to redesign the same ship for the 20th time for a barely tangible benefit. Maybe my fault was playing at 1X speed. Ship design is what got me to buy this game. What I saw reminded me of a Malfador Mechanations Space Empire game. However, like all things in Distant World 2, I can let automation do it, and I have been. And that's a shame, because ship design is an opportunity to give the player something they could enjoy. But all of the component choice seem really straightforward to me. So I might as well let the computer do it. That sense of, "yes, I could turn off automation, but why bother" pervades most of the systems. The overall scope of the galactic map is set so huge that I could not possibly make all the decisions for my 4X space empire, so you can automate most of it. In fact, it's one of the biggest things that set the Distant Worlds series apart: you can automate as little or as much as you want, and what you choose to automate will change the way the game plays. It's several games in one! Sort of. However, in this case, even if I found the best balance of automation for me, I'm not sure it would feel meaningfully involved as a player. By the Sid Meier attributed mantra that games are a series of interesting choices, Distant Worlds 2 overflows with the variety of choices, but makes no effort to communicate to the players in what way any choice offered is particularly interesting. Distant Worlds 2 leaves the players to find meaningful choice for themselves and, with a scope this vast, it's a needle in a haystack. So far, my hands are coming up with nothing but straw, but at least I can marvel at the sheer size of the haystack, how it's a microcosm full of magnificent teeming fauna. I do love a simulated microcosm, and this one can't be beat. But could this shift of perspective alone enough to spin this straw of a lack of meaningful player agency into the gold of a satisfying gaming experience? I didn't proceed aimlessly, but was rewarded with aimlessness. I followed Scott's guide, but it neglects to mention that if you try to rapidly build a fleet and muster it to defend you can only watch in horror and helplessly as all the ships spread themselves to the four corners of the vast expanses of space instead of mustering where you want them. It's because Distant Worlds 2 isn't an RTS, it's an immersive universe simulation that bears some minor resemblances to an RTS. It's that RTS resemblance that left a bad taste in my mouth as my newly-built frigates foundered helplessly with no in-game explanation. I can't say I enjoyed watching my captains [i]apparently pointedly ignoring my orders[/i] while they ran off and did their own thing and my mining stations burned down. Because that's not what games typically do. But I'm no stranger to adapting to ship AI jank (in fact, I'm quite good at X4: Foundations fleet management now).So it really comes down to whether or not I'm willing to put in the hours to adapt to the method behind Distant World 2's madness, to foster a better understanding why the AI does what it does and how I'm [i]expected[/i] to play. It later dawned on me that of course they must have been out of gas. Because they're freshly built ships so their fuel tanks are empty and they're going to limp to the nearest refueling station. However, the cause behind this initial confusion was again, my expectation this was more like an RTS. An RTS wouldn't launch a freshly-built ship without fuel. It would likely have pretended it had stockpiled enough fuel at the construction yard, that detail abstracted out. In Distant Worlds 2, it's not as abstracted. That same detailed microcosm that attracted me to Distant Worlds 2 carried this additional overhead. So the question is, "Should I be willing to put in the time to adapt?" 14 hours in, I sit at that crossroad. The immersive sim lover in me thinks that it's glorious to have a whole simulation running at all times. But the gamer in me thinks I ought to have been able to find some interesting choices in 14 hours of dabbling. Will I ever have a [i]good time[/i] playing Distant Worlds 2? If the answer leans to a mediocre-feeling "maybe," I can't help but look at my backlog of alternatives and wonder why I'm trying. You know what? I'm unlocking the comments. Tell me what I'm missing. What makes the adaptation curve worth it? I dumped $60 on this, it's too late for a refund, tell me what it'll take to turn that thumb around. In the meantime, here's some constructive feedback for the developers: improve that first impression. Prioritize gamism in the balance a little more over simulationism. Or don't. After all, making a game is hard, and Distant Worlds 2 is much more complicated than most. If this is the game you want to make, who am I to argue?